News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla Cybercab tests are going on overdrive with production-ready units
Tesla is ramping its real-world tests of the Cybercab, with multiple sightings of the vehicle being reported across social media this week.
Tesla is ramping its real-world tests of the Cybercab, with multiple sightings of the autonomous two-seater being reported across social media this week. Based on videos of the vehicle that have been shared online, it appears that Cybercab tests are underway across multiple states.
Recent Cybercab sightings
Reports of Cybercab tests have ramped this week, with a vehicle that looked like a production-ready prototype being spotted at Apple’s Visitor Center in California. The vehicle in this sighting was interesting as it was equipped with a steering wheel. The vehicle also featured some changes to the design of its brake lights.
The Cybercab was also filmed testing at the Fremont factory’s test track, which also seemed to involve a vehicle that looked production-ready. This also seemed to be the case for a Cybercab that was spotted in Austin, Texas, which happened to be undergoing real-world tests. Overall, these sightings suggest that Cybercab testing is fully underway, and the vehicle is really moving towards production.
Production design all but finalized?
Recently, a near-production-ready Cybercab was showcased at Tesla’s Santana Row showroom in San Jose. The vehicle was equipped with frameless windows, dual windshield wipers, powered butterfly door struts, an extended front splitter, an updated lightbar, new wheel covers, and a license plate bracket. Interior updates include redesigned dash/door panels, refined seats with center cupholders, updated carpet, and what appeared to be improved legroom.
There seems to be a pretty good chance that the Cybercab’s design has been all but finalized, at least considering Elon Musk’s comments at the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting. During the event, Musk confirmed that the vehicle will enter production around April 2026, and its production targets will be quite ambitious.
News
Tesla gets a win in Sweden as union withdraws potentially “illegal” blockade
As per recent reports, the Vision union’s planned anti-Tesla action might have been illegal.
Swedish union Vision has withdrawn its sympathy blockade against Tesla’s planned service center and showroom in Kalmar. As per recent reports, the Vision union’s planned anti-Tesla action might have been illegal.
Vision’s decision to pull the blockade
Vision announced the blockade in early December, stating that it was targeting the administrative handling of Tesla’s facility permits in Kalmar municipality. The sympathy measure was expected to start Monday, but was formally withdrawn via documents sent to the Mediation Institute and Kalmar Municipality last week.
As noted in a Daggers Arbete report, plans for the strike were ultimately pulled after employer group SKR highlighted potential illegality under the Public Employment Act. Vision stressed its continued backing for the Swedish labor model, though Deputy negotiation manager Oskar Pettersson explained that the Vision union and IF Metall made the decision to cancel the planned strike together.
“We will not continue to challenge the regulations,” Petterson said. “The objection was of a technical nature. We made the assessment together with IF Metall that we were not in a position to challenge the legal assessment of whether we could take this particular action against Tesla. Therefore, we chose to revoke the notice itself.”
The SKR’s warning
Petterson also stated that SKR’s technical objection to the Vision union’s planned anti-Tesla strike framed the protest as an unauthorized act. “It was a legal assessment of the situation. Both for us and for IF Metall, it is important to be clear that we stand for the Swedish model. But we should not continue to challenge the regulations and risk getting judgments that lead nowhere in the application of the regulations,” he said.
Vision ultimately canceled its planned blockade against Tesla on December 9. With Vision’s withdrawal, few obstacles remain for Tesla’s long-planned Kalmar site. A foreign electrical firm completed work this fall, and Tesla’s Careers page currently lists a full-time service manager position based there, signaling an imminent opening.
Tesla Semi Program Director Dan Priestly teased the major improvements to the all-electric Class 8 truck on Thursday night, following the company’s decision to overhaul the design earlier this year.
Priestley said he drove the Semi on Thursday, and the improvements appear to be welcomed by one of the minds behind the project. “Our customers are going to love it,” he concluded.
Just drove the redesigned Semi. Our customers are going to love it. https://t.co/KZ88sf1CDL
— Dan Priestley (@danWpriestley) December 19, 2025
The small detail does not seem like much, but it is coming from someone who has been involved in the development of the truck from A to Z. Priestley has been involved in the Semi program since November 2015 and has slowly worked his way through the ranks, and currently stands as the Director of the program.
Tesla Semi undergoes major redesign as dedicated factory preps for deliveries
Tesla made some major changes to the Semi design as it announced at the 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting that it changed the look and design to welcome improvements in efficiency.
Initially, Tesla adopted the blade-like light bar for the Semi, similar to the one that is present on the Model Y Premium and the Cybertruck.
Additionally, there are some slight aesthetic changes to help with efficiency, including a redesigned bumper with improved aero channels, a smaller wraparound windshield, and a smoother roofline for better aero performance.
All of these changes came as the company’s Semi Factory, which is located on Gigafactory Nevada’s property, was finishing up construction in preparation for initial production phases, as Tesla is planning to ramp up manufacturing next year. CEO Elon Musk has said the Semi has attracted “ridiculous demand.”
The Semi has already gathered many large companies that have signed up to buy units, including Frito-Lay and PepsiCo., which have been helping Tesla test the vehicle in a pilot program to test range, efficiency, and other important metrics that will be a major selling point.
Tesla will be the Semi’s first user, though, and the truck will help solve some of the company’s logistics needs in the coming years.
Tesla Cybercab tests are going on overdrive with production-ready units
Tesla gets a win in Sweden as union withdraws potentially “illegal” blockade
